 |
|
| Stats | |
| Goal: | $100.00 |
| Due Date: | May 31 |
| Gross Amount: | $65.00 |
| Net Balance: | $61.80 |
| Left to go: | $38.20 |
|
|
|
| Donations | |
| studioC ($25)May-17 | |
| Anonymous ($15)May-16 | |
| Anonymous ($25)May-4 | |
2 Facts
2.1 XOOPS Foundation LLC is a formalisation of an internet community, that it occupies with the development of the XOOPS software. Hundreds of volunteers , worldwide are developing this software. Coomans was one of these voluntairs.
2.2 XOOPS Foundation LLC was founded on 9 november 2009.
2.3 Coomans has founded the Stichting XOOPS on 26 november 2004. The goal of the Stichting is the promoting of the open source use and development of the eXentensible Object Oriented Portal System (XOOPS) Content Managment System inside the borders of the General Public License.
2.4 By the users of the open source software are donations transferred to the Stichting. With these moneys, the Stichting organises lectures and hardware is procured, used for the development of the software of the XOOPS project.
2.5 On 21 september 2003 has Coomans the domain name xoops.com registered in his name.
2.6 Coomans has the domain name xoops.com in the first half of 2008 offered for sale on the internet. He sold and delivered the domain name on 14 november 2008 to the Stichting for an amount of 4000 EUR.
3 The Dispute
3.1 XOOPS Foundation LLC demands in primary and subsidiary variants - summarised - conviction of Coomans to payment to her, at least to defendant sub 2 of 4000 EUR plus the other damages to be listed and to egalise them following the law, added with interests and costs. XOOPS Foundation LLC also demands an explaination for justice, that Coomans has enriched himselfes with regard to defendent sub 2.
Also XOOPS Foundation LLC demands that Coomans, or at least the Stichting is forbidden to do further retirements of the activa, among which the domain names, of defendent sub 2 for private goals of Coomans, or for other goals then the statuary goals of the Stichting, on penalty of a recurrent fine. XOOPS Foundation LLC made its demands pro se or according to article 3.305a of the Civil Code
3.2 Coomans defends. On the statements of the parties, if of importance, will be comented hereafter.
4 Judgement
4.1 The dispute between the parties has, seen the location of XOOPS Foundation LLC, an international character. Following article xxxxx is the Dutch judge authorised. Parties made both reference to the Dutch Civil Code and this is for the court a silent choice for the Dutch law. The court will therefore apply the Dutch law.
4.2 XOOPS Foundation LLC has the demands by means of a collective action posted following article xxx, as pro se
4.3 The court shall declare XOOPS Foundation LLC not submissible for sofar the demand is based on collective action. Following article xxx en following jurisdiction, such an action can only demanded by a legal entity, that following its statues and also effectively focus on the defending of the interests of the group that it represents and in general measurement is esteemed representative enough for to act in obligant cases as protecting the collective interests for the law, as eg a Consumer Organisation.
That XOOPS Foundation LLC in these effective act to protect an enough representative group of the XOOPS internet community and especially in defending the interests of it, is motivated, disputed by Coomans cs and afterwards inadequate substanstiated. From the 8 by XOOPS Foundation LLC submitted declarations, where only 3 had a signature, of the XOOPS involved parties on the stated hundreds of volunteers, can this not be derived. The court can this also not etablish on base of the other by XOOPS Foundation LLC stated productions. From the piece that as production 1 by the subpoema is given (Initial Articles of Incorporation), the court is only aware that XOOPS Foundation LLC is founded with the goal to promote the free use of the XOOPS software. It is not to the court to distillate the aledged same common defence of interests out of the English texts, but the XOOPS Foundation LLC has to state this explicitly and therby to point out the relevant parts of these pieces, which she has neglected.
4.4 Therby comes the court to the judgement of the demands for sofar the XOOPS Foundation LLC has made these demands pro se. XOOPS Foundation LLC substanstiates the demanded, summarised, with the statement that the Stichting has been founded in service of the internet community, whereby funds were raised for the needs of this internet community and that it seems that Coomans, via the Stichting, only serves his private interests and not the ones of the XOOP internet community, whereby personal enrichment comes up . Coomans cs have motivated disputed this.
4.5 In this case, it is a fact that the Stichting is founded by Coomans on 26 november 2004 en that he is the only chairman, while XOOPS Foundation LLC is founded on 9 november 2009. From the declarations of both parties follows that XOOPS Foundation LLC as Coomans cs have the goal of developing and promoting the free software, designated as XOOPS and make it accessible to the internet community, but that one of the parties has in this respect an exclusive right, that is not enough stated and it is not obvious to the court. That not the Stichting, but XOOPS Foundation LLC is the rightful claimant for the moneys donated by the users of the XOOPS software to the Stichting and that these activa must be transferred to XOOPS Foundation LLC is motivated, disputed by Coomans cs and is then insufficient substanstiated by the XOOPS Foundation LLC. There are no pieces submitted by XOOPS Foundation LLC were that explicitly makes clear, while tangible pieces that show an contractual relation between Coomans cs and XOOPS Foundation LLC exists, that can be qualified as a legal relation between Coomans cs and XOOPS Foundation LLC and which brings obligations for these parties, are missing. Lacking other statements on that point, the court assumes it is up to the users of the software to determine if they donate money to either the Stichting or to XOOPS Foundation LLC, which activa then can be used to his sole discrecy of the receiver.
4.6 With respect to the domain name, the court establishes by the answer from production a, that Coomans has registered the name on his behalf and thus not for the XOOPS community. That XOOPS Foundation LLC has a right for the name and that Coomans cs has handled in dispute of that by selling the domain name is again motivated, disputed and afterwards not substanstiated by XOOPS Foundation LLC with enough tangible facts. This way, there can not be assumed that Coomans has enriched himselves in disfavour of XOOPS Foundation LLC or has violated with XOOPS Foundation LLC made agreements on that point.
4.7 The conclusion is that the demands are to be denied.
4.8 XOOPS Foundation LLC shall as the put into wrong party judged to pay the proceeding costs.
it is beyond our comprehension that the court could state that purchasing by Herko the domain www.xoops.com on behalf of XOOPS (as confirmed by others)
4.8 XOOPS Foundation LLC shall as the put into wrong party judged to pay the proceeding costs.
This will be my last post ever on this website. In fact, this will be my last post on any XOOPS related website.
We really don't need people from ICMS coming here and telling us how this community should run this project, and flame us. We don't go to ICMS and tell you what to do and how to run your project, so we would appreciate if you would respect XOOPS as well.
Quote:it is beyond our comprehension that the court could state that purchasing by Herko the domain www.xoops.com on behalf of XOOPS (as confirmed by others)
Who has confirmed this? I have only seen people (including myself) denying the claim that Herko purchased the domain on behalf of anyone.
You also conveniently leave out of the equation the fact that Herko had the domain appraised by independent valuars - he did not arbitrarily pick the amount out of thin air.
Now the verdict complies with common sense and you should start moving on instead of wasting more of XOOPS' money on useless lawsuits. (only my opinion and seeing how you seem to like to play childish censorship games with forks and other CMS's, I doubt you will listen to reason now... so good luck XOOPSers. I think you'll need it)"
@ Mamba , Please stop with your childish games! or YOU should move on.... Your comments are not doing Xoops any good at all and its making you look rather young in age...
Who has confirmed this? I have only seen people (including myself) denying the claim that Herko purchased the domain on behalf of anyone.
You also conveniently leave out of the equation the fact that Herko had the domain appraised by independent valuars - he did not arbitrarily pick the amount out of thin air.
I leave it without any further comments....
2.6 Coomans has the domain name xoops.com in the first half of 2008 offered for sale on the internet. He sold and delivered the domain name on 14 november 2008 to the Stichting for an amount of 4000 EUR.
As fiduciaries, the directors may not put themselves in a position where their interests and duties conflict with the duties that they owe to the company. The law takes the view that good faith must not only be done, but must be manifestly seen to be done, and zealously patrols the conduct of directors in this regard; and will not allow directors to escape liability by asserting that his decision was in fact well founded.
By definition, where a director enters into a transaction with a company, there is a conflict between the director's interest (to do well for himself out of the transaction) and his duty to the company (to ensure that the company gets as much as it can out of the transaction).
To Exercise the Duty of Loyalty:
1. Conflicts of Interest. Under certain circumstances, a contract or transaction between a nonprofit corporation and its director or an organization in which the director has a material financial interest is acceptable. However, if the transaction is challenged, the director will have the burden of establishing that the contract or transaction was fair and reasonable, that there was full disclosure of the conflict and that the contract or transaction was approved by members or other directors in good faith.
EXAMPLE: XYZ Corporation is selling property to the Conservancy for fair market value. The Conservancy's Board member, Jones, is also a member of the board of XYZ Corporation. Jones appraises the property for XYZ Corporation. Even if Jones waives all appraisal fees, a conflict exists both because Jones is a director of both corporations and both corporations have an interest in the transaction, and because Jones rendered consulting services. Jones should recuse himself, on the record, from any involvement in this project.
[Note: If Jones own more than 5% of XYZ, the Conservancy's policy regarding Conservation Sales to or From Related Parties would prohibit the Conservancy from purchasing of land from XYZ Corporation.]
Since I signed the petition, I will donate 20€ to pay my share on the lost lawsuit.
I don't mind to pay extra 20 to give it another try.
the important thing for us as a community is to continue with our work and keep moving forward
Mith,
Quote:
Who has confirmed this? I have only seen people (including myself) denying the claim that Herko purchased the domain on behalf of anyone.
Look, when two people, both in a position of knowing, make the same statement independently of each other, we need to assume that it's correct. You posted it, it is in writing, and nobody forced you or David to make these statements. But they are there, as we showed it in the original thread. I don't want to argue anymore about it - I let the readers be the judge...
Quote:
You also conveniently leave out of the equation the fact that Herko had the domain appraised by independent valuars - he did not arbitrarily pick the amount out of thin air.
Yes - the "Independent Valuars" did provide an estimate for him. Here are the estimates that Herko provided to the Court. They are taken from the Web:
http://www.dnscoop.com/
http://www.estibot.com/
According to www.dnscoop.com, the estimated value of http://xoops.org is: $30,590,000
If you believe that those estimates are accurate, then we could vote as XOOPS community to see if we agree to sell it to you or Herko at 30% discount - for only $20,000,000. Are you buying? You will get an incredible bargain. After all, it is estimated by "Independent Valuar"...
I leave it without any further comments....
So you are actually saying that Herko sold it too cheap.
So you are actually saying that Herko sold it too cheap.
This case will be definitely a warning to other Open Source projects to avoid the Dutch "Stichting" legal form, and about the Dutch court that obviously doesn't understand the Open Source project idea.
- Attorney costs total: 4388,91
It's unclear if this figure is inclusive or exclusive
You really should ask yourself if the costs for proceeding, (an appeal) in this case is worthwhile.
|
![Click to see original Image in a new window](javascript:CaricaFoto("http://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/oopadventureswithxoops-121001010800-phpapp01-thumbnail-2.jpg");)
